Point out one instance where I was wrong. Just one, I'd love to see you try.Why don't you add a disclaimer to all of you posts that you haven't got a clue what you are posting about?
Right, so you can just half-ass testing conditions, change variables, and screw up a relatively easy procedures, but then we're suppose to take your results seriously. Good to know. Glad we got that cleared up.Of course, more voltage is going to add more heat and the fan has to be cranked up
- and my point is that it *doesn't matter* to the benchmarking or performance results.
relative noise is not what my review is about. Look it up; i am not allowed to post a link to my reviews on this forum (PM sent)
When i began testing, i pointed out that the HD 5870 is much quieter than the GTX 480 *until* you get the fan up around 90% - then they are both annoying as hell.
You apparently don't know how to read or comprehend anything outside your preconceived HW fantasy world.Right, so you can just half-ass testing conditions, change variables, and screw up a relatively easy procedures, but then we're suppose to take your results seriously. Good to know. Glad we got that cleared up.
So instead of doing a fair comparison of parts, i.e. a $400 reference 5870 against a $500 reference GTX 480, you're taking an AIB-designed nonreference part, including it's price premium, and instead using it as comparison. Like I said, you fail at the scientific method on so many levels, it's saddening.http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2066677
Here you go .. MSI Lightening HD 5870 equals my core clock and puts +74 MHz on the DDR5 over my Diamond's reference overclock.
- now you know approximately how the fastest stock-clocked HD 5870 performs against both a stock and overclocked GTX 480
If 1020 MHz was "normal" for a good OC, then the MSI Lightening would probably be clocked higher than 975 MHz . . . and it is the same price as GTX 480. This is what i predicted. There is no price war - AMD puts overclocked HD 5870 against GTX 480.
Just today or over the last few weeks? I read the review, I found a few interesting points .Did you even bother to read my review? It came up early this morning.
Let me toss this one right back at you:
Point out one instance where I was wrong in my review. Just one, I'd love to see you try.
Ridiculous.
The PC PCS+ came directly from AMD
- how do i change that supplier?
- i bought my Diamond reference HD 5870 from NewEgg less than a month ago
What "most people" ?
. . . do you mean, e-peen fanboy people who boot into windows at 1030/1335 with HD 5870 and call it 'stable' on a forum and then later complain because their warranty gets denied?
i got +125 MHz OC on the 5870 core; it is a decent overclock and you can see HD 5870 scaling with clock speed; 1300MHz on the RAM looks pretty good; would +25 MHz on DDR5 make a perceptible difference IF i could achieve it?
Do you really thing ANYTHING would be different with +25 MHz on the core - HD 5870 at 1000/1300 vs. GTX 480 at 825/1100?
Do you think the ranking would change much with 1025/1300? - if not, how far should i go to catch the overclocked GTX 480?
... 850 > 875 > 975 >1000 > 1025 .. do you really think 1025 MHz is "representative" of what "everyone" gets on air cooling (at 1.35V) ?
Still missing the point, or ignoring it. Let me spell it out more clearly. The big complaints for Fermi are noise, heat and power draw. By applying excessive voltage to Cypress it will then be just as hot, just as much of a power hog, and just as noisy as Fermi. It will probably still perform below Fermi. End result? Shows Cypress in as negative a light as possible and trivializes Fermi's shortcomings. The only people I can see your work being a service to is nVidia by making Fermi look as good as possible and Cypress look as bad as possible.
i do use page separations - there is even a drop down index and 22 separate pagesapoppin I just want to say I think you really should use page separation for your review
Part 2 went up this morning at 3 AM PSTJust today or over the last few weeks? I read the review, I found a few interesting points
You still don't get it at all.
My review is not a "noise" review - not AT ALL !
What is it about Overclocked "performance analysis" that you do not understand?
i do use page separations - there is even a drop down index and 22 separate pages
-- i think you just saw the "view all" on page 23
Part 2 went up this morning at 3 AM PST
Seeing as the 480 was oc'ed almost 20% and the 5870 was barely over 10%, that might be your discrepancy.
about 1.18 on that video look at face of rock cliff.
What's my point? Did you read my review?Wait what? 18% is almost 20%. So I was a couple percentage points off for the 5870. Also, I don't think you can buy a 480 with 825 mhz, so what's your point? Should we just give up at the fastest buyable oc?
That means the 480 oc'ed should be disqualified right now with your thinking.
As it has been mentioned before, the 480 might be cherry picked, and your 5870 is most definitely a very poor overclocking one.
If the retail 480's overclock this well, then fine, the 480 and the 5870 are relatively equal when overclocked.
The tricky one is the 5850. It can overclock as well as the 5870 losing only 2-3% points compared to a similarly clocked 5870. For such a lower price (~$200), it can get quite close the the 480. I'd like to see a comparison with an oc'ed 5850.
Now in order to achieve a stable core overclock of 1000MHz on the MSI R5870 Lightning, we had to raise the core voltage to 1.35v using the AfterBurner software
. When at idle all seems fine, with a similar consumption level to that of a standard Radeon HD 5870, which is about as low as high-end graphics cards get.
However subjecting the MSI R5870 Lightning to a full load test using FurMark the system power consumption figure hits 530 watts. That is a 34% rise in power consumption under load for about a 14% increase in performance. More over, the MSI R5870 Lightning is now using around 3% more power than the GeForce GTX 480, which is clearly not a good thing.
They too had a crappy chip. Not rocket science here
Uh, what? The only time a chip is crappy is if it cant run at stock speed. Not being able to run outside of its operating parameters (i.e. overclocked) is not crappy, unless its a guaranteed factory overclock.They too had a crappy chip.
Why are we arguing about appopins overclocking abilities in a thread abou another review?
So the GTX is roughly 18% oced and the Radeon is what-11%(14 core-8 mem) ?
Vantage has a 16-16.74% increase for Nvidia and 6-7.9% for the Radeon.
COJ has a 17.84% increase on the 480 and a 3.93% for the 5870,
Crysis - 17.31% vs 8.88%,
Farcry2 -10.68% vs 9.58%,
WiC - 13.92% vs 8.1%,
X3TC- 6.27% vs 3.85%,
Dirt2 - 12,06 vs 2,44,
L4D - 16.83 vs 5.11,
Lost Planet - 21.4 vs 5.34
...etc
While it seems to me that the GTX scales better( by a lot in some cases), how does that happen? Possibly Mem clock needs to get higher or what?
Let me put it another way:
Does it make ANY difference to the performance numbers to running a 'hot-running' HD 5870 vs. a "cool" 5870 at the *same clock* speeds - where both are 100% stable?
As i said before, "too bad" i got a card that couldn't get 1000MHz on the core with 1.35V - but it does not invalidate ANY benchmarking i did with it because it is 'loud'.
Uh, what? The only time a chip is “crappy” is if it can’t run at stock speed. Not being able to run outside of its operating parameters (i.e. overclocked) is not crappy, unless it’s a guaranteed factory overclock.
Just because little Timmy on the internet can reach X MHz, that doesn’t mean squat.
Overclocking mentality amuses me, especially when some people have the mistaken impression that it’s somehow mandated from hardware.